Healthcare providers consistently overestimate the diagnostic probability of ventilator-associated pneumonia

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated Events, and Nosocomial Respiratory Viral Infections on the Leeside of the Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on population health and hospital operations. Over 7 million patients have been hospitalized for COVID-19 thus far in the United States alone. Mortality rates for hospitalized patients during the first wave of the pandemic were > 30%, but as we enter the fifth year of the pandemic hospitalizations have fallen and mortality rates for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 have plummeted to 5% or less. These gains reflect lessons learned about how to optimize respiratory support for different kinds of patients, targeted use of therapeutics for patients with different manifestations of COVID-19 including immunosuppressants and antivirals as appropriate, and high levels of population immunity acquired through vaccines and natural infections. At the same time, the pandemic has helped highlight some longstanding sources of harm for hospitalized patients including hospital-acquired pneumonia, ventilator-associated events (VAEs), and hospital-acquired respiratory viral infections. We are, thankfully, on the leeside of the pandemic at present; but the large increases in ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), VAEs, bacterial superinfections, and nosocomial respiratory viral infections associated with the pandemic beg the question of how best to prevent these complications moving forward. This paper reviews the burden of hospitalization for COVID-19, the intersection between COVID-19 and both VAP and VAEs, the frequency and impact of hospital-acquired respiratory viral infections, new recommendations on how best to prevent VAP and VAEs, and current insights into effective strategies to prevent nosocomial spread of respiratory viruses.

Improvement in Diagnosis and Management of Nosocomial Pneumonias in a Cardiovascular Surgery Intensive Care Unit: A Multidisciplinary Approach

BACKGROUND

While criteria for the diagnosis of nosocomial pneumonias exist, objective definitions are a challenge and there is no gold standard for diagnosis. We analyzed the impact of the implementation of a logical, consensus-based diagnostic and treatment protocol for managing nosocomial pneumonias in the cardiovascular surgery intensive care unit (CVS-ICU).

METHODS

We conducted a quasi-experimental, interrupted time series analysis to evaluate the impact of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU. Impacts were measured relative to patient outcomes, diagnostic processes, and antimicrobial stewardship improvement. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze results.

RESULTS

Overall, 35 pre-protocol and 39 post-protocol patients were included. Primary clinical variables suggesting pneumonia in pre- and post-protocol patients were new lung consolidation (50% vs. 71%), new leukocytosis (59% vs. 64%), and positive culture (32% vs. 55%). Appropriate diagnostic testing improved (23% vs. 54%, p = 0.008) after protocol implementation. The proportion of patients meeting the criteria for nosocomial pneumonia (77% vs. 87%) was not statistically significant, though more patients in the post-protocol group met probable diagnostic criteria (51% vs. 77%). Duration of therapy was not significantly different (6 days [IQR = 5.0, 10.0] vs. 7 days [IQR = 6.0, 9.0]).

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a diagnostic and treatment protocol for management of nosocomial pneumonias in the CVS-ICU resulted in improved diagnostic accuracy, advanced antimicrobial and diagnostic stewardship efforts, and laboratory cost savings without an adverse impact on patient-centered outcomes.

Breaking Boundaries in Pneumonia Diagnostics: Transitioning from Tradition to Molecular Frontiers with Multiplex PCR

The advent of rapid molecular microbiology testing has revolutionized infectious disease diagnostics and is now impacting pneumonia diagnosis and management. Molecular platforms offer highly multiplexed assays for diverse viral and bacterial detection, alongside antimicrobial resistance markers, providing the potential to significantly shape patient care. Despite the superiority in sensitivity and speed, debates continue regarding the clinical role of multiplex molecular testing, notably in comparison to standard methods and distinguishing colonization from infection. Recent guidelines endorse molecular pneumonia panels for enhanced sensitivity and rapidity, but implementation requires addressing methodological differences and ensuring clinical relevance. Diagnostic stewardship should be leveraged to optimize pneumonia testing, emphasizing pre- and post-analytical strategies. Collaboration between clinical microbiologists and bedside providers is essential in developing implementation strategies to maximize the clinical utility of multiplex molecular diagnostics in pneumonia. This narrative review explores these multifaceted issues, examining the current evidence on the clinical performance of multiplex molecular assays in pneumonia, and reflects on lessons learned from previous microbiological advances. Additionally, given the complexity of pneumonia and the sensitivity of molecular diagnostics, diagnostic stewardship is discussed within the context of current literature, including implementation strategies that consider pre-analytical and post-analytical modifications to optimize the clinical utility of advanced technologies like multiplex PCR.

Provider Perceptions of Antibiotic Initiation Strategies for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia

Background: The practice of rapidly initiating antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected infection has recently been criticized yet remains commonplace. Provider comfort level has been an understudied aspect of this practice. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in provider comfort level between the two treatment groups. Methods: We prospectively surveyed critical care intensivists who provided care for patients enrolled in the Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP), which was a multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial that evaluated an immediate antibiotic initiation protocol compared with a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation in ventilated patients with suspected new-onset pneumonia. At the end of each enrollment arm, physicians at each center were surveyed regarding their overall comfort level with the recently completed treatment arm, and perception of adherence. Both a paired and unpaired analysis was performed. Results: We collected 51 survey responses from 31 unique participants. Providers perceived a higher rate of adherence to the immediate initiation arm than the specimen-initiated arm (Always Adherent: 37.5% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.045). Providers were less comfortable waiting for objective evidence of infection in the specimen-initiated arm than with starting antibiotic agents immediately (Very Comfortable: 83.3% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). For the smaller paired analysis, there was no longer a difference in comfort level. Conclusions: There may be differences in provider comfort levels and perceptions of adherence when considering two different antibiotic initiation strategies for suspected pneumonia in ventilated patients. These findings should be considered when planning future studies.